Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, this is a very important subject, so we have a prepared statement in which we would like clearly to announce that free movement is a defining principle of the European Union. It is one of the most tangible and successful achievements of the European project. An area without internal border controls is central to the success of the single market and Europe’s continued efforts to boost growth.

We must ensure that the reintroduction of internal border controls by Member States does not erode the freedom of movement and impede the realisation of the European Union’s greatest achievements. Attacking free movement jeopardises the internal market, solidarity among Europeans and ultimately the European project.

The European Council agreed that there is a need for an EU-based mechanism to respond to exceptional circumstances which might put at risk the overall functioning of Schengen cooperation. We are studying this idea, but let me be very clear: any such mechanism would need to operate in a way which does not endanger the principle of the free movement of persons.

Beyond such a mechanism, a series of measures could be envisaged at EU level to assist a Member State facing heavy pressure at the external borders. These would include inspection visits and technical and financial support, including the participation of Frontex. The Commission is looking into how these support measures can be put forward. In the framework of this EU-based mechanism, a safeguard clause could be envisaged as a very last resort, allowing the exceptional reintroduction of internal border controls in a truly critical situation for a strictly limited period, geographically limited and for a minimal period of time where a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Schengen rules.

The European Union works on the basis of mutual trust, solidarity and responsibility. As such, establishing a coordinated, EU-based response would allow all European interests to be taken into account and limit unilateral initiatives by Member States to reintroduce internal borders.

The Commission intends to take up the invitation from the European Council to submit a proposal for such a mechanism together with the updated proposal on the Schengen evaluation in September. Given the crucial importance of free movement for the EU and its future, the Commission strongly believes that the proposal for the mechanism should be based on Article 77 of the TFEU. In this way, proposals will be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure, thus ensuring the full involvement of Parliament, on an equal footing with the Council.

Finally, a word on the topical issue of controls at the Danish borders. The Commission has conveyed to Denmark its grave concerns concerning the respect of Treaty freedoms and of the Schengen acquis. Since then, intensive and constructive contacts between the Commission services and Denmark have been taking place on a daily basis and at different levels. We will assess in detail the recent measures introduced by the Danish authorities. Indeed, the Commission needs to know how the Danish authorities will conduct checks at the border so that it can assess whether they are in compliance with the EU rules on free movement of goods, services and persons.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the free movement of people, goods and services is a central piece of the European construction and is guaranteed by the Treaties that Member States have ratified. The Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will do its outmost to ensure that this is respected all over Europe.

Renate Weber, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, over the last few months the European Union has been confronted with several challenges. As if the economic crisis and the efforts to overcome it were not enough, some Member States have added another sensitive point to the agenda.

Instead of welcoming the switch to democratic regimes in some countries in northern Africa, and instead of putting more energy and imagination into assisting the peoples there, a couple of governments – ironically, EU founder-members – afraid that 25 000 people entering the EU would affect their stability, considered that the best way to protect their own borders would be to close them. They had the idea that a new mechanism, profoundly affecting the Schengen area and free movement, should be allowed.

Other governments consider that reinstating border controls is an efficient way to fight organised crime, as if criminals follow rules. The ALDE Group has been very firm and vocal from the very beginning. We do not want – and we will not accept – any new mechanism that may affect the Schengen acquis, the very spirit of EU integration.

Instead, we are ready and have already started working towards better Schengen governance for better protection of the EU external borders – while fully respecting the human rights of those trying to reach them – and towards full implementation of the principle of solidarity among Member States.

Politicians who believe that European citizens will like them as a result of this initiative are very wrong. They may get some votes in their own countries in the next elections as politicians, but they will not be forgiven for not acting as great statesmen in the interest of all European citizens, including their own. Only the preservation of Schengen and its acquis is a win-win situation.

Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, this House has had many debates lately on how the Union deals with the pressures of migration and borders and we welcome another opportunity to expand the discussion. These discussions are long overdue, and so is reform of the Schengen system. Providing free movement is no longer the only issue that Schengen has to face. Twenty-six years has heralded change, growth and unfortunately some new and very big problems.

The world is changing, Europe is changing, and the Union’s response to new challenges needs to change too. Events in North Africa, increased migration, increased trafficking of drugs and people, unemployment, organised crime and terrorism are all issues that need to be addressed by a new and improved Schengen system. I hope that the response which the European Union delivers is one that is thoughtful and measured and not just over-speedy or reactionary.

The system should be made better and serve the people of Europe better. Member States need clear and strong support from the agencies of the EU – like Frontex, Europol and Eurojust – and there needs to be a strengthened evaluation mechanism for Member States who join the Schengen area, including a much greater focus on the prevention of corruption, the combating of organised crime and the establishment of independent judiciaries. We need to seriously consider the benefits of an evaluation mechanism which includes a support regime as well as a sanctions regime.

Member States need more say regarding their own borders, not less. Member States and the European Union should be partners, not master and slave. We must listen to Member States and listen to the needs of European citizens. Whilst doing so, we must always protect fundamental rights and freedoms. Only then will we be able to build faith and longevity once again into the Schengen system.

Claude Moraes (S&D). - Madam President, at the outset, the Commissioner started to say the positive things we wanted to hear, but the pre-emptive strike contained in this resolution is here for a reason. The reason is that we, in wanting to convince the people of the value of Schengen – the genuine value of Schengen, the economic value of Schengen, the social value of Schengen – have to make that case. But we have to do that from this Parliament, not on the sidelines of consultation but in the centre of the situation, with codecision. So, first of all, regarding Article 77, this is something we ask for and we expect to see from the Commission in the autumn.

The Socialists and Democrats are clear that we will work and vote with colleagues across this House who believe in the value of Schengen. Our group is saying very clearly that manipulation of Schengen comes at the greatest social and economic cost.

To the Council, we say that the flexibility already exists for Member States to alter the Schengen rules. It already exists, so we want a mechanism which provides safeguards and makes the Member States think twice if they want to abuse the rules that they themselves have put together.

We say clearly that we will oppose any new Schengen mechanism that has any other objective than enhancing freedom of movement and reinforcing EU governance of the Schengen area. We say to the Commission: do your job as guardian of the Treaties and provide the clear oversight which will make those Member States think twice about inflicting damage on a key freedom that our citizens enjoy.

The bigger picture is vital. There is a problem with the external border. Not since Tampere have we made rules on asylum and immigration, a fact that is now putting Schengen and the Schengen area under pressure. That is happening; it happened in Italy and France.

But what is at stake here, if the Commission does not get it right, is that you will irretrievably damage the Schengen area, which would then irretrievably damage one of the most positive and tangible benefits of the European Union. Our group will take the higher ground with all other colleagues in this Chamber and remain firm in the defence of Schengen.

Tatjana Ždanoka (Verts/ALE). - Madam President, in the Green/EFA Group we also believe that free movement of people within the Schengen area has been one of the biggest achievements of European integration. Therefore only real threats could be a reason for the reintroduction of border checks, as a last resort. Such threats must be immediate, not merely hypothetical.

As regards the procedure, it should be European in nature. By the Schengen Borders Code the EU has exercised its competence concerning the reintroduction of border checks. This means that the Member States cannot legislate on it any more. Also we deplore the fact that the current procedure is de facto unilateral; this matter is already within the framework of EU law, not national law. Therefore, Commissioner, we suggest that the Commission takes one step further and proposes a mechanism whereby the European Union institutions will decide on the reintroduction of border checks.

Timothy Kirkhope (ECR). - Mr President, I rise on a – I am not sure under what rule really, but merely on a point of information to welcome you to the chair, for what I believe is your first session as Vice-President of Parliament, and wish you all the very best in that role.

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD). - Mr President, the former British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, was once asked by a journalist what he, as a politician, feared the most. He replied ‘Events, dear boy, events’. He was one hundred per cent right. Events are what is overwhelming the foundations of the supposed European superstate.

It is said that the Schengen Agreement is one of the great achievements of the EU Commission. What we are all witnessing is the unravelling of Schengen. When nation states believe that their national interests and those of their own citizens are threatened, they simply throw out EU solidarity – understandably so, and rightly so. That is what Denmark – and let us not forget France – is doing now, and there will soon be others.

It is not just Schengen. We are also witnessing the falling apart of the euro zone. I can mention the euro zone in this debate because Schengen, the euro zone and the euro are linked. The common threat is the inadequacy of those running the EU.

If the German MEP would care to listen, he might learn something. If he wants to talk, he should do it outside the House.

It is the nation states who are the best able to govern themselves. The EU nomenclatura have demonstrated that they are congenitally unfit to do so.

President. − Colleagues, by special request of the Earl of Dartmouth, I am asked to request the honourable colleagues in the second row facing me not to interrupt him while he is speaking. I am most grateful to you for your attention.

There is this idea of reintroducing internal Schengen borders because of migratory flows. This is not a good idea. If you want to control migratory flows, you protect the external borders and do not reintroduce internal borders. If you do so, you will be sealing off Member States that are dealing with high migratory pressure and leaving them to deal on their own with problems that are in fact common problems. This is not the answer to common challenges, and it will jeopardise one of the best achievements of Europe.

Those Member States that think that closing Schengen borders will solve problems must also explain to their own people that, once you shut the door, you may well keep others out but you will also keep your own people locked in. It works both ways.

Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, on behalf of the Commission I would also like to congratulate you and I wish you lots of success in your new position. As you will see, you will often have your hands full handling debates as lively and important as today’s. I would also like to thank all the Members of the European Parliament who supported Schengen and who made it absolutely clear that Schengen represents freedom and reunification of Europe, openness and also togetherness of European nations and European citizens in the European Union.

This debate also confirmed that it is true that the Schengen system has come under pressure recently. We must do everything possible to upgrade it and make it stronger than before. We need to start by restoring trust. We need to maintain mutual trust in our capacity, the capacity of us all, to fully comply with the obligations imposed on us to preserve an area without internal border controls. Therefore Schengen needs a stronger monitoring and evaluation system. The Commission is looking into the possibilities for further strengthening this new mechanism aiming to bring an adequate response to a situation where a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations at the external borders.

A series of measures could be envisaged at EU level to assist a Member State facing heavy pressure at the external borders. It would include inspection visits, technical and financial support, including the participation of Frontex. I think we all agree that we need a complex and comprehensive approach to this problem. We are therefore talking about a complete set of measures including an EU-based mechanism, strengthened Schengen governance, evaluation and reinforcement of Frontex and further guidelines and recommendations to better explain the existing rules.

This has to be seen in parallel with the completion of a common asylum system in 2012, where – as we know – we also very often have big divergences in how the asylum system is applied and how asylum status is granted to refugees.

I would reiterate once again that we are fully aware in the Commission of the crucial importance of free movement for the EU and its future. Therefore the Commission strongly believes that the proposal for the mechanism should be based on Article 77 of the TFEU. This means that the proposal will be subject to ordinary legislative procedure, thus ensuring full involvement of Parliament on an equal footing with the Council.

If you allow me, I should like to conclude on Denmark, because several of you have referred to the recent and current developments in Denmark. I would like to inform you that on 28 June the Commission received a reply from Denmark to our questions. The reply is now being carefully evaluated by all the Commission services concerned in order to decide if all the Commission questions have been answered and if all relevant information has been provided. As I said in my introductory remarks, we are fully aware of our important role as a guardian of the treaties, and we will do our utmost to ensure that all rules, all acquis, and the Schengen acquis in this particular context, are fully respected.

President. − The debate is closed.

I have received six motions for resolutions(1) tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.